johnenock Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 1 hour ago, bronze johnny said: Tony, I won't comment on this until personally seeing pictures of the books and evaluating them. However, what do you think the grades should be? thx, john Always wondered why company X books sold for less. Maybe overgrazing is the reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foley Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, johnenock said: Always wondered why company X books sold for less. Maybe overgrazing is the reason? Overgrazing can often lead to soil erosion and nutrient runoff. I hope company X does not condone this practice. porcupine48 and entalmighty1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnenock Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 Libs! 27 minutes ago, Foley said: Overgrazing can often lead to soil erosion and nutrient runoff. I hope company X does not condone this practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lou_fine Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, grube09 said: I subbed 3 X books to CGC. X ASM 31 9.0 came back CGC 7.5 X Hulk 2 4.5 came back CGC 4.5 X Hulk 4 6.0 came back CGC 5.0 I kept the X labels before I sent them to CGC. That ASM was a killer Killer in what sense of the word? In Fishler's terminology that the ASM 31 was a "killer copy" (i.e. real HG copy) and that CGC had severly undergraded the book? Or that you knew that the other company had clearly overgraded the book and sent it in anyways to CGC hoping they would give you an equivalent or possibly even higher grade and you got "kill" because it was graded more accurately this time? Since you held the book in hand and must have had some idea about its condition level, did you personally feel it was closer to a VF/NM copy or only a VF- copy? Edited May 2, 2018 by lou_fine c0micbooknerdgirl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grube09 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 2 hours ago, lou_fine said: Killer in what sense of the word? In Fishler's terminology that the ASM 31 was a "killer copy" (i.e. real HG copy) and that CGC had severly undergraded the book? Or that you knew that the other company had clearly overgraded the book and sent it in anyways to CGC hoping they would give you an equivalent or possibly even higher grade and you got "kill" because it was graded more accurately this time? Since you held the book in hand and must have had some idea about its condition level, did you personally feel it was closer to a VF/NM copy or only a VF- copy? Killer in the fact that it was such a big drop. I did feel it was overgraded as a 9.0 so I was not disappointed in the drop, but the severity of the drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lou_fine Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 28 minutes ago, grube09 said: Killer in the fact that it was such a big drop. I did feel it was overgraded as a 9.0 so I was not disappointed in the drop, but the severity of the drop. Good to know that you did not want the book to be sitting in a slab with what you felt was an overgraded label. Since you felt that it was such a big and severe drop in grade, did you feel that the 7.5 grade was accurate or might the book have been slightly undergraded here? This is where a comparison of the Grader's Notes would be very useful to see why the book dropped down to only a CGC 7.5 as it would indicate what the other company might have missed when they graded the book. As collectors here, it's all part of the learning curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entalmighty1 Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 What are the odds they'll ever get more detailed when describing restoration? For example, it would be helpful if color touch was noted as "one area" or "multiple areas," instead of the ever vague "small amount." That would actually benefit them as a grading company, because many customers would probably attempt to have the single spot removed, then have the book regraded. Badger, jimjum12 and Ricksneatstuff 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoWitHurts Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 On 5/1/2018 at 12:57 PM, Sqeggs said: Finally, there's the issue of which company is grading more accurately. Maybe it's not that Company X is too loose and CGC is accurate, but it's that Company X is accurate and CGC is too tight. Maybe Company X is coming closer to Overstreet grading or to what the consensus grading was in the hobby pre-CGC or to some other standard. I very much agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted May 2, 2018 Author Share Posted May 2, 2018 7 hours ago, bronze johnny said: Tony, I won't comment on this until personally seeing pictures of the books and evaluating them. However, what do you think the grades should be? thx, john I'd say that CGC's grade are more on the mark to me. The Action 58 seemed like a weak 7.0 (the grade Company X gave it). The Adventure 43 was a tough one because it looks very sharp but has a few scrapes along the spine, including one noticeable one at the top of the spine. That's the kind of unusual defect that's difficult to grade, imo. I can understand downgrading it from Company X's 8.0, but dinging a full point to 7.0, seems a bit harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sqeggs Posted May 2, 2018 Author Share Posted May 2, 2018 5 hours ago, Foley said: 5 hours ago, johnenock said: Always wondered why company X books sold for less. Maybe overgrazing is the reason? Overgrazing can often lead to soil erosion and nutrient runoff. I hope company X does not condone this practice. I used to run into that autocorrect all the time. The work around is to have it learn the spellings "overgrading" and "overgraded." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woowoo Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 1 hour ago, WoWitHurts said: On 5/1/2018 at 10:57 AM, Sqeggs said: Finally, there's the issue of which company is grading more accurately. Maybe it's not that Company X is too loose and CGC is accurate, but it's that Company X is accurate and CGC is too tight. Maybe Company X is coming closer to Overstreet grading or to what the consensus grading was in the hobby pre-CGC or to some other standard. I very much agree with this. 100% after all these books are 70 plus years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttock Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 On 5/1/2018 at 11:57 AM, Sqeggs said: The least shocking thing to see on the boards? An insightful post from Dr. Love! I didn't crack them out -- I sent them still in the Company X slabs. I believe CGC when they say that graders only see the raw books and don't know the previous grade (if any) on either their slab (on a straight resubmit) or on another company's slab. Even if we put on our tinfoil hats, it's not clear which way knowing the previous company's grade would cut. Would it be, "Aha, let's knock the grade down to show we're really tight graders" or would it be, "If we knock down the grade we reduce the incentive for people to submit the other company's books"? I wasn't surprised that some of the grades were lower. I think I've posted before that my experience has been that typically CGC grades are lower than Company X's grades. In fact, I don't recall ever getting back a book with from CGC with a grade higher than the grade Company X gave it. But I have gotten back some books at the same grade. So, five out of five lower was surprising. The C1 is the dreaded "Restoration includes: small amount of glue on spine of cover." As we all know, this one is sometimes overlooked (by both companies) on GA books. So that may have been just a bad roll of the dice. I'm assuming I can probably get it scrapped off and get the book back in a blue label. On the pq, it's certainly subjective, but all five books coming back the same or lower is interesting. But again, small sample. Finally, there's the issue of which company is grading more accurately. Maybe it's not that Company X is too loose and CGC is accurate, but it's that Company X is accurate and CGC is too tight. Maybe Company X is coming closer to Overstreet grading or to what the consensus grading was in the hobby pre-CGC or to some other standard. I don't think any of that much matters because, for better or worse, CGC has become the industry standard. They account for the overwhelming number of graded books and their books are the only ones represented on GPA, which is our best source of pricing data. So, I guess the bottom line for me is that I think it's a problem for Company X that their grades are consistently lower than CGC's grades, irrespective of whether in some fundamental sense Company's X grades are more accurate. IMO, CGC is paranoid about glue and will call it when it's debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttock Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 On 5/1/2018 at 8:07 AM, Sqeggs said: So ... I had some Company X books that I thought I would send in to CGC to see what's what, who's who, and where's where. The grades for the first group just posted. Here are the results Action 58 Company X grade: 7.0 OW-W CGC grade: 6.5 C-1 OW Action 111 Company X: 7.5 OW CGC: 7.0 OW Adventure Comics 43 Company X: 8.0 CR-OW CGC: 7.0 CR-OW Captain Marvel, Jr. 27 Company X: 9.2 OW-W CGC: 9.0 OW Funny Picture Stories 7 Company X: 5.5 OW-W CGC: 5.0 OW-W It's still early in the season, but 0 for 5 ain't good. Another thing to consider in all of this: It's pretty easy to call a 9.4 or a 1.0. The 4.0-7.5 range is much tougher and you'll find a lot more variation in opinion there. I'd be curious to see what a comparison would show between a handful of 9.0+ books and I suspect that would be a more accurate indicator of differences between the two companies. That being said, when West was the head grader at CGC their grades got really soft, so I think there's a reason for softness that we might all have expected. lizards2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grube09 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 22 hours ago, lou_fine said: Good to know that you did not want the book to be sitting in a slab with what you felt was an overgraded label. Since you felt that it was such a big and severe drop in grade, did you feel that the 7.5 grade was accurate or might the book have been slightly undergraded here? This is where a comparison of the Grader's Notes would be very useful to see why the book dropped down to only a CGC 7.5 as it would indicate what the other company might have missed when they graded the book. As collectors here, it's all part of the learning curve. I was hoping 8.5, but thought 8.0 on a bad day. I was really caught off-guard by the 7.5. Oh well...at least I can now say I have a NICE 7.5! Here are the ASM 31 notes: Company X: tiny spine stress breaks color tanning top interior cover wear bottom spine breaks color CGC: Light crease left bottom of front cover breaks color Moderate tanning top of interior cover Hard to say what they punished so heavily. Is tanning a big CGC negative? The lower left hand crease was my guess, but CGC calls it "light". And apologies, as I know this is the Gold forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lou_fine Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 16 minutes ago, grube09 said: CGC: Light crease left bottom of front cover breaks color Moderate tanning top of interior cover Hard to say what they punished so heavily. Is tanning a big CGC negative? The lower left hand crease was my guess, but CGC calls it "light". And apologies, as I know this is the Gold forum. No apologies necessary as I consider this type of good discussion to be healthy and part of the learning curve for collectors like me who don't really sen books in for grading. Based upon what I am reading here, I also don't see why the book would have graded as low as a CGC 7.5. Unless they didn't bother to list all of the defects which I am not sure is common or not with respect to their notes. Maybe it's quite possible that the other company's 9.0 grade might actually be closer to the actual real grade of the book, as opposed to CGC's 7.5 grade. Is it a requirement for them to list all of the defects they identify on a book because I heard that in cases like a CGC 9.6 or CGC 9.8, they sometimes don't have anything in their notes at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N e r V Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) I can’t speak for everyone who uses them but it seems I’ve seen a lot more “comments” recently about CGC being even tighter these days with grading. My own limited experience is even people I respect with their “solid” grading standards I’m having the books come back about 1/2 grade lower than what I purchased them at. I believe I’ve seen a few people comment that the time of year you send them in seems to matter though I can’t remember the when or if it was supposed to be up or down. Edited May 3, 2018 by N e r V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grube09 Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 25 minutes ago, lou_fine said: No apologies necessary as I consider this type of good discussion to be healthy and part of the learning curve for collectors like me who don't really sen books in for grading. Based upon what I am reading here, I also don't see why the book would have graded as low as a CGC 7.5. Unless they didn't bother to list all of the defects which I am not sure is common or not with respect to their notes. Maybe it's quite possible that the other company's 9.0 grade might actually be closer to the actual real grade of the book, as opposed to CGC's 7.5 grade. Is it a requirement for them to list all of the defects they identify on a book because I heard that in cases like a CGC 9.6 or CGC 9.8, they sometimes don't have anything in their notes at all? From what I know there are no requirements for CGC and their graders when it comes to graders notes. In fact, I rarely check them as 99% of the time (for me anyway), it's a waste of time given the vagueness of most of their notes, if there are any. I guess this is in accordance with their policy on not to publish their grading standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timely Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 4 hours ago, buttock said: Another thing to consider in all of this: It's pretty easy to call a 9.4 or a 1.0. The 4.0-7.5 range is much tougher and you'll find a lot more variation in opinion there. I'd be curious to see what a comparison would show between a handful of 9.0+ books and I suspect that would be a more accurate indicator of differences between the two companies. That being said, when West was the head grader at CGC their grades got really soft, so I think there's a reason for softness that we might all have expected. Sorry to throw facts into the equation, but I was never a head grader at CGC. That honor belonged to Haspel & Litch. West Cat-Man_America, jimjum12, Larryw7 and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buttock Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, Timely said: Sorry to throw facts into the equation, but I was never a head grader at CGC. That honor belonged to Haspel & Litch. West My mistake then, I thought you took over once Mark stepped down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomber-Bob Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 20 minutes ago, buttock said: My mistake then, I thought you took over once Mark stepped down. Litch took over from Haspel, and you are correct, the grading got soft, really soft. I still avoid anything slabbed around the 2011 timeframe. I recently got lazy and bid on a book in auction without doing proper research. I surprisingly won the book with a soft bid. Upon closer inspection I could see the book was graded soft. After checking the grade date, sure enough, graded in 2011. I believe Haspel is back on a consulting basis and the team now seems to be grading properly. Between the emergence of pressing and the soft grading from this time period, again you are correct, many got spoiled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...